On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 11:17:59PM -0500, Jacob Errington= wrote:
> On 9 February 2013 22:14, v4hn <me@v4= hn.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31:12PM -0500, Jacob Errington wrote:<= br>
> > > With this definition, we can easily = create a predicate meaning "to look
> > for
> > > properties that make you happy", e.g. {.i mi sisku lo k= a mi gleki ce'u}.
> >
> > Didn't you mean to say events/states here instead of properti= es?
> >
>
> No, I did intend to say properties, due to my general philosophy about=
> Lojban predicates: if an intrinsic connection between a sumti and an > abstraction exists in a given selbri, then that abstraction is a prope= rty
> of that sumti.

Ok, that seems to be a sane perspective. Although, I'm rather sur= e,
it overrides quite some learning material, so you have to deal with
alternative views as well..

> > That's what gleki2 is supposed to be. Mixing up terms here is= confusing.
>

> It's been said in at least a few other posts, [...] that the= type

> restrictions in brackets in the gismu list are not p= rescriptive.

> That being said, the gismu list simply tells u= s that the x2 must be an
> abstraction, with the *suggestion* that it should be an event or state= . I
> disagree with that suggestion, and due to its non-prescriptive nature,= am
> entitled to use a ka-abstraction there.

Yes, you are. but in {.i mi sisku lo ka mi gleki ce'u} you didn&#= 39;t say that the
{ce'u} place is to be a ka-abstraction. Therefore, this can't just = be
translated as "to look for properties that make you happy", becau= se "to look
for events that make you happy" is at least an equally good translatio= n.
"to look for abstractions that make you happy" would be more fitt= ing
for all possible interpretations, I suppose.

I'm sorry about that confusion then. You're right, I should h= ave made it more clear. I also agree that "abstractions" would ha= ve been better overall.

=A0

Also, at least in my philosophy, you can become happy about an event
you're not involved in. {mi gleki lonu do citka lo plise} is a perfectl= y
valid sentence, so you're argument from above doesn't really restri= ct
the type of abstraction here, necessarily.

Right. That's the downside to this system: it wi= nds up requiring some extra verbosity if you want to use an event that does= n't involve the formal argument. The solution that I made up for this w= hen I first considered a new system for abstractions involved introducing a= small exception: lifri2 is a {li'i}, rather than a {ka}, and the li= 9;i-bridi doesn't need to contain ce'u. When a li'i-abstraction= is used inside a ka-abstraction, the ce'u-place typically finds its wa= y into li'i2, and then all is well.

{.i mi gleki lo ka [se] li'i do citka lo plise}.

The major advantage, however, of my abstractions sys= tem is that is makes producing jvajvo simpler. If we consider any lujvo of = the type -dji, the jvajvo become a bit annoying, because djica2 is a {nu} (= something I have yet to believe should be a {ka}).

e.g. ctidji =3D x1 djica lo nu *x2* citka x3 kei x4
Saying t= hat there's a place merger is pretty wrong, because the Lojban definiti= on then becomes slightly ridiculous. Place mergers should only occur on the= same abstraction-level.

e.g. pampe'o =3D x1 boi x2 prami gi'e pendo

Because of this inconvenience with {djica} and other nu-type selbri,= many lujvo makers simply drop the annoying x2 place. When speaking the ful= l structures, leaving out the x1 is simple due to the bridi-tail counting r= ule, e.g. {.i mi djica lo nu citka lo plise}, but if we use the jvajvo, FA = cmavo or repetition become inevitable, e.g. {.i mi ctidji fi lo plise}.

Indeed, ka-selbri are nicer in jvajvo: {.i mi ctika'= ;e lo plise} -> {.i mi kakne lo ka [ce'u] citka lo plise}.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--14dae93a15c30076d304d55eabf8--